Judges Rogers, DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 523]

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the appellant, R. W. Martucci, an unemployment compensation claimant, had necessitous and compelling cause to leave his work as a security investigator for Provident National Bank. On this issue, Mr. Martucci had the burden of proof. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 378 A.2d 829

[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 524]

(1977). He testified to a personality conflict with his immediate supervisor which caused him stress which, in turn, led to his decision to quit his work in the interest of his health. He offered no medical testimony and in the course of describing his discomfiture at work volunteered that he "probably could have stuck it out." The referee and the Board properly decided that Mr. Martucci had left his work because of dissatisfaction with his working conditions, a cause which has been consistently held not to be necessitous and compelling. Knox v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 588, 317 A.2d 60 (1974).

Order affirmed.

Order

And Now, this 20th day of February, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated August 8, 1977, is affirmed.

Disposit ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.